You mean to say the Chinese can operate 2000+ highly advanced multirole jets while we should be happy with only 800? How does that work?

We have the ability to produce 2 squadrons each of Rafales, Gripens and LCAs every year, and this number is just the minimum. Everything has to do with money. All other countries are minimizing numbers because they can't afford it, as I said, money. Developing countries everywhere are expanding their air force. Brazil, Indonesia, Vietnam, Russia etc.

If the Chinese bring 1000+ jets to the theater, we need 600 jets to counter it considering we do double their sorties. Considering these numbers, what makes you think we can do it with just 800 jets in total? As the report says, we definitely need 20 squadrons in the North and the West to either deter or fight China. That's just 350 jets versus 500+ enemy jets in the region.

In the current setup, we will have to deter the Chinese while we concentrate on decimating the PAF in a few days. And then move most of the jets to the east after that. In those few days the Chinese will have a huge advantage.

The Chinese are going to start producing 50+ J-20s every year from 2018. And who knows how many J-10C and J-11D will be produced apart from that. We will have to match at least half their production.

Click to expand...

This is the same one to one fallacy again. All of the chinese inventory cannot be deployed against IAF. They always had these kind of numbers and still IAF was confident with 42 sqd. Only thing changed is quality of PLAAF. Which we should counter in the same way.

Assuming budget to increase proportional to GDP growth indefinitely is wrong. A democracy like india will only go for minimum deterrence. We will always have other priorities. Whatever the military asks is just a wishlist to the political class.

Numbers are planned according threat perception and minimum deterrence.

Isn't that same thing i'm saying. Why are you keep jumping in and replying without understanding what the other is saying?

18 x 6 = 108

My point is the numbers are all wrong. Taking in unconfirmed FGFA numbers while not LCA.

Still hanging on the original point which i explained before.

Why are you quoting thing out of context. As i explained before it was an example how airforces all around the world evolved overtime.

No its not. Airframes are too old. It can never go beyond ten more years.

I'm done replying to half boiled arguments.

Click to expand...

You seem to oppose for sake of opposition, the author when he did the report did his best, ofcourse realities change as time pass.
Proved you are quoting wrongly from text of 5 sqd of LCA, when its clearly mentioned , MK2 added more with Ge414/Kaveri, additional orders to follow, but you seem too stubborn to accept who have been nick picking wrongly on article prepared earlier in 2014. there was no upper cap in LCA for 5 sqd in article as you so wrongly claim. Rest shows your lack for forward strategical thinking, being too hung hoo that you always right.

IAF wants 55-64 squadrons. GoI sanctioned only 42. The numbers will go up once the 42 squadrons become available.

Regardless you said IAF never asked for it. But they did.

That explains, still his six sqd LCA is too dumb. Must be from IAF bias.

Click to expand...

Why so? His FGFA number is the same as what IAF wanted, 8 squadrons, 154 jets. He's being realistic.

This is the same one to one fallacy again. All of the chinese inventory cannot be deployed against IAF. They always had these kind of numbers and still IAF was confident with 42 sqd. Only thing changed is quality of PLAAF. Which we should counter in the same way.

Click to expand...

You forget that we have to deal with Pakistan as well. In the next 10 years their economy will double and their budget will double. Their requirement for high end jets will increase.

We have to deal with 2000+ Chinese fighters and 350 Pak fighters. Even if the Chinese bring only half their inventory, we won't have enough because we still have to deal with 1350 with 800. And China will have more high end jets than India will.

You are being highly dismissive of both China and Pakistan.

Assuming budget to increase proportional to GDP growth indefinitely is wrong. A democracy like india will only go for minimum deterrence. We will always have other priorities. Whatever the military asks is just a wishlist to the political class.

Click to expand...

Nope. Do you think the US has minimum deterrence? Defence depends entirely on strategic objectives.

If India seriouly wants to prepare for a 2.5 front war, then they would require at least 62-65 sqaurdons to have a decisive edge over PAF and PLAAF.

Click to expand...

that would be to win the War, but the future clash would be the quick, high intrinsic, quick and short, thus needs networked, Electronic war fared, and objective oriented one, and for that 45 Squadron is more than enough with technical viable upgrades. In case of Pakistani front, the objective would be to suppress the PAF Air defence, and Survellence capability to achieve Air Superiority, and for the Chinese front, the IAF would fought the Defencive ones and in this IAF is in advantageous position. One more think, the Chinese would have at least 4-5 front, and their main concentration and forces are deployed in the South China Sea, Korean Region and Russian/Mongol border.

As India opens up its defence manufacturing in a big way under the proposed Strategic Partnership (SP) model, the Vice Chief of Air Force Air Marshal S.B. Deo on Thursday stressed on the need to develop Intellectual Property (IP) within the country.

“We manufacture fighters, helicopters and we need to import a UAV?... If we don’t generate IP here, we are doomed to build-to-print... The quicker we dismantle this build-to-print, the quicker we develop IP here, the better we are,” he said while speaking at a seminar on Energising Indian Aerospace Industry organised by the Centre for Air Power Studies and Confederation of Indian Industry (CII).

The Air Marshal further added that we are into committees, sub-committees and concepts but we don’t get our hands on it. “We are afraid of failure. This is what is holding us back,” he stated.

He gave the example of Brazil which has teamed up with SAAB of Sweden and managed to develop significant technologies locally.

Air Marshal Deo said that the SP model will give results in the long term “may be in the next decade or so.” Under the SP model, private sector will partner with global firms to build military hardware in India.

His comments assume significance as the Indian Air Force is about to issue a Request for Information (RFI) to the two single-engine fighter manufacturers available in the global market — Lockheed Martin for its F-16 and SAAB for its Gripen — under the SP model estimated at over ₹60,000 crore.

What can we say about IAF? They went gaga over SU-30s in late 90s without training people for rear seat job as TCOs. Now we have a situation when nearly 33% of IAF fleet will need two pilots to operate effectively. Do you know the kind of huge drain it is on training resources and manpower? Now IAF is fixated with Rafale and there too they will face similar problem.

What can we say about IAF? They went gaga over SU-30s in late 90s without training people for rear seat job as TCOs. Now we have a situation when nearly 33% of IAF fleet will need two pilots to operate effectively. Do you know the kind of huge drain it is on training resources and manpower? Now IAF is fixated with Rafale and there too they will face similar problem.

Click to expand...

There's a reason why Russia had gone for single seat SU-35, US having single seat F-35 & F-22 ..........

Even SU-57 PAK FA is single seat and IAF wants FGFA with dual seat..........IAF again committing mistake. With higher automation the need for second pilot is eliminated but IAF still wants dual seat. IAF don't seem to see future and have forward looking vision........... It costs a lot to train a pilot and add salaries to it and the whole IAF budget goes out for toss........

There's a reason why Russia had gone for single seat SU-35, US having single seat F-35 & F-22 ..........

Even SU-57 PAK FA is single seat and IAF wants FGFA with dual seat..........IAF again committing mistake. With higher automation the need for second pilot is eliminated but IAF still wants dual seat. IAF don't seem to see future and have forward looking vision........... It costs a lot to train a pilot and add salaries to it and the whole IAF budget goes out for toss........

Click to expand...

The dual seat requirement is only 48 jets, that's about 25% of the total FGFA fleet.

What can we say about IAF? They went gaga over SU-30s in late 90s without training people for rear seat job as TCOs. Now we have a situation when nearly 33% of IAF fleet will need two pilots to operate effectively. Do you know the kind of huge drain it is on training resources and manpower? Now IAF is fixated with Rafale and there too they will face similar problem.

There's a reason why Russia had gone for single seat SU-35, US having single seat F-35 & F-22 ..........

Even SU-57 PAK FA is single seat and IAF wants FGFA with dual seat..........IAF again committing mistake. With higher automation the need for second pilot is eliminated but IAF still wants dual seat. IAF don't seem to see future and have forward looking vision........... It costs a lot to train a pilot and add salaries to it and the whole IAF budget goes out for toss........

Click to expand...

It's not a mistake and mainly depends on how you plan to use the fighters. Israeli air force for example use many twin seates as well, just as a large amount of the French Rafales are twin seater too.

Since MKI was considered to be operated in long endurance missions, as a mini AWACS as well as strike missions, the twin configuration made a lot of sense, since the WSO could focus on the data gathering and sharing, target aquisition or simply to take over patrol flight for a time.

The talk about modernisation of the cockpits and all is just PR, we have seen how the 2 most modern fighters EF and Rafale either got help from twin seat Tornados, or prefered twin seater for the strike role anyway. Israel and some other F35 customers initially asked for twin seaters as well, but the US wanted to cut the costs, not further increase it.

The problem IAF now has, is that the MKI needs to take over too many jobs, even basic once of interceptors, simply because the modernisation of the fleet is too slow. With LCA and more importantly MMRCAs coming in, that will change and the MKI can focus on it's core roles.

The role of FGFA was considered largely the same as MKI initially, that's why a twin seat config was considered too. But since signature reductions and passive detection capabilities might get priority, not to mention from the far higher operational costs compared to MKI, the idea might change.
On the other side, the twinseat FGFA would be ideal to guide and control a swarm of UCAVS too, so let's see how IAF sees things in future.

The last 40 + 2 we bought to replace the upgraded Mig 27, because IAF made once again an insanely bad upgrade decision, that wasted money but did not factored how big the engine issues were (+2 to replace crashed once).
And no, we shouldn't had bought 40 Rafales, in the middle of a running tender, just as we shouldn't had bought 36 x Rafale when you still negotiate with the OEM for the larger deal and even consider a new tender without Rafale. Both times, Indian would be put in a bad position to negotiate, just as IAF has to deal with increased type numbers, although they wanted to decrease them.

The last 40 + 2 we bought to replace the upgraded Mig 27, because IAF made once again an insanely bad upgrade decision, that wasted money but did not factored how big the engine issues were (+2 to replace crashed once).
And no, we shouldn't had bought 40 Rafales, in the middle of a running tender, just as we shouldn't had bought 36 x Rafale when you still negotiate with the OEM for the larger deal and even consider a new tender without Rafale. Both times, Indian would be put in a bad position to negotiate, just as IAF has to deal with increased type numbers, although they wanted to decrease them.

Click to expand...

There were plenty of reasons to buy the Rafale.
1. It was the best.
2. It continues to be the best.

We should have gone straight away for 126 M-2000 production and bought 40 Rafales alongside it in a GTG deal. In hindsight, this was the best move.

We would have saved money for as many as 42 MKIs, junked the Mig-21 and Mig-27 much earlier and absorbed a huge amount in offsets for the 40 Rafales much earlier.

With the SE MII complete, we would have had moved on to TE MII post 2020. A Tejas with Kaveri and RBE-2AA would also have become available by this time.